Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @08:07AM
from the piracy-is-a-sin dept.

Adrian Lopez writes "Techdirt reports that 'apparently, the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."' Demand Progress is running an online petition against such lopsided representation."

But voted out of office in exchange for what? Another one of the same.

Ultimately, yes, the problem is the voters. But it's rather like complaining that if the sheep don't like the pen they are herded into, they should get a new sheepdog, when we all know the shepherd is calling the shots.

Exactly. Anyone who really wants the job that much shouldn't be allowed to have it. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book about a human colony that had this exact rule; leaders were appointed more-or-less randomly, after disqualifying those who really wanted to be the leaders; it was called "Songs of Distant Earth".

But voted out of office in exchange for what? Another one of the same.

Another one of the same who is afraid to go against your wishes on the particular issue you got the predecessor voted out of office for. This is very important. Remember that the rule of American politics is "do anything the corporations pay you to; as long as it doesn't offend the NRA". This is not because the NRA has huge amounts of money (though they have quite a bit); it's because they credibly and effectively make the threat to vote out whoever offends them. If you aren't voted in then you aren't getting your corporate bribes.

There are a bunch of things to learn from the NRA. Things like:

Organise; meet; get together.

Gather money; put it into a fund which is dedicated to your exact issue.

Very clearly target specific politicians and ensure that you are seen to get rid of them

Be fun and interesting to be part of

These things do not come at once and immediately; the NRA was founded in the 1870s and only got to full success in the 1980s, but if you are patient and keep at it you will win.

The idea that we can do nothing is planted in our minds in an attempt to stop us from doing anything. It's true that most people will still ignore you, but that doesn't matter. Most Americans aren't part of the NRA and they are still the effective rulers of the country for the particular issue they care about.

Don't forget to fear monger to your group endlessly like the NRA does. I'm a gun owner, I love my gun rights. I carry daily. I WAS a NRA member. I'm so sick of getting letters about how Obama (or whatever evil you can come up with) is going to take away my guns unless I give the NRA another cash injection.

Obama has bigger issues than guns, and he won't be taking them away during campaign time (which with our media is basically from day one in office). The truth is that gun rights have gotten a lot better in the last 3 years. Their message of constant fear and attack just drove me away.

Just curious. How much of that improvement has happened because of Obama, and how much because of legal actions by the NRA?

I think it's more because, in the recent past, any politician who had a platform of curtailing gun rights ended up losing in the elections: just look at Al Gore in 2000. If he hadn't talked about enacting more gun restrictions, he probably would have won.

Just curious. How much of that improvement has happened because of Obama, and how much because of legal actions by the NRA?

It's not that he is passing laws to improve gun rights. It's that he is not going after gun rights. States like mine are passing laws making carrying a firearm and use of a firearm easier. Our gun rights are expanding, the only thing the federal government needs to do is sit back and let the states decide what is ok for them and stop using the term "assault rifle".

If I was going to do anything, it would be to ease restrictions on importing/buying automatic weapons for civilian sale. There are a few "full auto" firearms I would like to own for recreational shooting that are too cost prohibitive for me to acquire at this time (Due to the restrictions limiting us to weapons made before 1986). I am ok with the restrictions required to purchase these firearms, it's just that the date restriction makes it hard to find and afford them.

On to the NRA. What I see from the NRA in their letters to me from their president is just pure fear mongering. The last letter I received said something along the lines of "Let me tell you my greatest fear for the freedom and safety of the US is that Obama will be reelected president.". Really? His greatest fear is Obama being reelected? He goes to tell me the ONLY WAY I can protect my right to own a firearm is to send them money. Another letter talks about the fabled United Nations Small Arms Treaty which will take away all our guns (gasp!). Only it's completely untrue. Hell even snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp) has an article on it showing it's a big fat NRA lie.

Here is another example

“[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.”

“But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.”

“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared.

So they actually think the fact Obama is not trying to take our guns is proof he is trying to take our guns! The fact is beyond that, the NRA frequently is not protecting the gun ownership rights I care about, and instead focusing its efforts on legalizing hunting of endangered wolves and other such nonsense.

I would support the NRA if they would simply lobby congress to keep laws sane, inform us of real attempts to take away our rights and urge voting action, and sponsor and support safe and educational events to introduce people into the wonderful sports involved with firearms. That is why I am keeping my money in my wallet for now. Screw the NRA.

The NRA started as an advocacy organization, and one of the most successful in modern times. Unfortunately during their campaigns against (mostly Democrat-sponsored) gun control legislation, they lost track of the fact that they were supposed to be against gun control, not against Democrats generally.

They have still not returned to their original mission, so they're basically just partisan shills now.

Why on earth does anyone need a sports car? Why on earth does anyone need to hunt? Why on earth does a single guy need a SUV? Why on earth does anyone need cookies? Why does anyone need a computer case with LED lights? Why on earth does anyone need a 47+ inch TV?

I have a hobby, that hobby is shooting firearms. If you have ever shot a automatic firearm, you would realize it is a lot of fun. But assuming you want a crazy mans answer, another legitimate reason is so you can fight back against your government.

They research and detail for us what everyones real record is on "gun control", and send us those lists in American Rifleman so we know the score come voting time.

Except that they don't actually do so. They lie [lakelandtimes.com] or play statistics games with the real record instead. Hell, the NRA even lies about its own record [thefirearmsforum.com].

Most important, we've got the second amendment in our back pocket and every single one of us votes when we think there's anything remotely related to our right to keep and bear arms.

Oh for the love of... no, you freaked-out morons are too busy screaming "second amendment" to pay attention to the rest of the constitution.

A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?

Oh, but no. For you, the "right to keep and bear arms" means "I get to walk into a grocery store with an assault rifle and an extended clip full of hollow-point rounds in case I spot a deer that I want to shoot later that day." What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?

I mean, really. The first amendment - far more fundamental to your civil rights than the 2nd - has limitations called time, place, manner. You can't randomly shout "fire" in a crowded theater (though it's sometimes funny to walk into the local firehouse and shout "theater" to see how many of the local firemen get the joke), because it'd cause a panic that is likely to result in injury. Likewise, your "right to own guns" is clearly limitable in terms of what guns are and aren't acceptable, and the government's right to register who owns them is unassailable [cbsnews.com] except for uneducated idiots... come to think of it, the NRA thrives on them.

Nobody is coming to "take away ur gunz." They might - I repeat, MIGHT - pass a law requiring the registration of such guns. It might even include "gun fingerprinting" (ballistic markings) records such that the gun used in a crime can be more easily identified, much in the same way that cars are trackable by license plates.

But don't worry. I'm sure by tomorrow you'll have forgotten anything you read here when the NRA's next "that muzlim nigger wantz to take away ur gunz" memo comes in.

Or are you one of the people who insists on using the term "magazine" nonstop instead? Because in normal speak (unless you're in the presence of gun nuts who have a chip on their shoulder), the term "clip" is common parlance for "detachable magazine."

Of course, computer nerds often get upset when someone who doesn't know any better (and really, if you've never taken one apart, why would you know the difference?) refers to their PC's tower case as "the hard drive", so m

A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?

Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.
2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.

If you believe governments register guns to help solve crime, you are sadly mistaken. That is the talking point, and some of your friendly government agents might even believe that. The point of gun registration is to subsequently remove guns from citizens' hands. History indicates this is often followed by those citizens losing far more of their rights, if not their lives.

Oh, but no. For you, the "right to keep and bear arms" means "I get to walk into a grocery store with an assault rifle and an extended clip full of hollow-point rounds in case I spot a deer that I want to shoot later that day." What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?

The Second Amendment is about hunting as the First Amendment is about singing folk songs. The First Amendment was included specifically to prevent the government from squelching the people from saying unfavorable things about the government. The Second Amendment was and is for when the government ignores the rest of the Constitution.

Your rights are limited to the point that they do not infringe of the rights of others. The example of shouting "fire" in a crowed theater is how the grownups explain it to those on the short bus that cannot grasp the magnitude of what our freedoms mean and require. You seem completely ignorant that all of the rights you take for granted today were provided to you by and armed citizenry.

Guns are used as the weapon in far more INTENTIONAL killings than cars are. Lies, Damn Lies, and Twisted Statistics anyone?Or should we go with "Guns don't kill people: I do." [youtube.com]

2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.

Not specifically as such. However, the right to freedom of movement [wikipedia.org] is. Within such, the right to purchase a vehicle is present; the right to OPERATE a vehicle is limited by (a) each state's individual registration requirements and safety inspection requirements (varying from state to state) and (b) the privilege, after passing a driver's test and registering for a driver's license, to operate a vehicle once one has proven that one understands the requirements of safe driving and obedience to traffic laws. This can be taken away should someone be proven incapable of driving safely; HOWEVER, even in circumstances when someone's normal driving privileges are taken away due to abuse (too many accidents, drunk driving convictions, etc), most states allow a legal framework of "limited driving" rights (a restricted license) if someone, say, cannot get to their workplace from their home without the use of a vehicle. Only those physically INCAPABLE - due to senility, blindness, or other physical factors - are barred completely from driving as to allow them into traffic would constitute far too great a danger to them and others sharing the road with them.

The Second Amendment is about hunting as the First Amendment is about singing folk songs.

Actually, no. The mention of a "militia" in the Second Amendment required two things: #1 you REGISTERED as a member of the local militia, #2 you TRAINED as a member of the local militia. You had an organizational structure.

Meanwhile, the "right to keep and bear arms" also included local laws. For instance, law in several of the original 13 states required each able-bodied man to shoot or kill by other means (generally, traps) a certain number of "pest animals" (birds that fed on crops and predator animals that hunted livestock) each year. Hunting was, to much of the population then, a "necessary part of life" in a way that it simply isn't today.

Your rights are limited to the point that they do not infringe of the rights of others. The example of shouting "fire" in a crowed theater is how the grownups explain it to those on the short bus that cannot grasp the magnitude of what our freedoms mean and require. You seem completely ignorant that all of the rights you take for granted today were provided to you by and armed citizenry. Put your helmet back on before you hurt yourself.

I would say it's you who should put your tinfoil bat back on before the eeevil mind control beams get you. Because seriously, the inanity that comes out of the NRA crowd these days - proving they have done no research, no independent analysis, and probably were the ones sleeping through 3rd grade history too - is just incredible. You can support the reasonable right to bear arms, while simultaneously agreeing that weapons of this sort should be registered, and not come off as a complete loon, but I've yet to meet the NRA type who isn't a raving, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist.

Which is the same as any other organization whose income is based on donations or memberships. I get mailings to my new address in a different state from the NPR station that served me before. I got membership renewal forms from a club I was part of for two years after my last engagement with them.

Another one of the same who is afraid to go against your wishes on the particular issue you got the predecessor voted out of office for

Uniting masses only works if there's just one issue to unite on.

What we need now is to scrap this entire branch of the source code and go back to the original spec, the constitution.

Few want that, though. It would force either amending the constitution, or killing all the federal programs and even entire executive departments that have zero constitutional basis. Good luck convincing boomers that social security isn't in the constitution.

> Good luck convincing any sane person that "if its not> in the constitution, its not the job of government" is a> valid argument.May I try to start with you? I'd like to convince you only that "if its not in the constitution, its not the job of the federal government". Individual states are far more free to govern as much or as little as they like:

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

> they cannot have WHAT THAY PAID FORI don't know of anybody who wants to deny SS contributors their benefits. The program doesn't have to end -

I said this yesterday, and I'll say it again today: the problem is that the "two" parties in power now both have the same agenda. It is time for people to start voting third party.

This sounds great on the surface. But who exactly am I supposed to vote for? I am American by the way. I cannot in any way vote Libertarian. I totally reject the Libertarian Party. I truly believe that libertarianism is a fatally flawed political philosophy that cannot work. I see communism as a more rational political philosophy. That's really bad. The other parties are too small and too narrowly focused for my tastes so there is no real third party option for me.

The Libertarians and the Republicans seem to be merging lately, because Libertarian economic principles are very good for giant corporations.

Social libertarianism is a very sound political philosophy, but usually it gets mixed up with the economic version (which says there should be no regulation on corporations, they should be free to pollute however much they want, etc.) and looks bad by association.

I see communism as a more rational political philosophy. That's really bad. The other parties are too small and too narrowly focused for my tastes so there is no real third party option for me.

There's an official Socialist Party that would possibly represent your views more accurately. You might also check out the Greens if you haven't: They're definitely one of the most established actually left-wing parties out there. There are definitely options other than Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians.

libertarianism (note the lowercase initial letter) is quite reasonable. The Libertarian party isn't. And isn't libertarian.

I'm not certain that libertarianism is an acceptable political choice, but it is reasonable and defensible. This is not true of Libertarianism.

The government is too large and too intrusive in the lives of citizens is the message of libertarianism. This isn't at all the same as "The government shouldn't interfere with whatever I want to do." But it's headed towards that, even though all sensible people would stop before it got that far.

N.B.: communism (note, again, the lowercase initial letter) is also quite reasonably defensible. And not totally inconsistent with libertarianism...though there are obvious points of conflict. But traditional communism didn't scale. Even a village was larger than it's optimal size.

Question: What is a reasonable social system for a civilization where only 20% of the populace need to work to produce the goods used by the rest of the civilization? Does this change if the number declines to 15%? 10%? 5%? 1%? Nobody?

This is the current problem. If we can solve energy requirements, the percentage of the populace that will need to hold jobs is going to be declining. It has already declined tremendously, even though this is being masked by various societal mechanisms.

Question: What are the implications of the military increasingly deploying robot soldiers?

No, it is time for people to stop waiting for the parties to select their candidates for office before getting involved. If you want to change things get involved locally, where you can make the biggest difference. Support candidates at all levels who support making decisions at the lowest level of government possible.

"I said this yesterday, and I'll say it again today: the problem is that the "two" parties in power now both have the same agenda. It is time for people to start voting third party."

That is not how human beings work, the whole system was designed by enlightenment era thinkers with enlightenment view of human reasoning but it is scientifically wrong, the whole system is now the problem because of mistaken notions about human minds and how they function.

In the UK we had television debates before our elections for the first time last year they were attended by the biggest 3 party leaders.

In a setting where media bias couldn't help people the 3rd place party, the Lib Dems, started to shoot ahead in the opinion polls, at one point polling as the most popular party with a chance of winning.

Enter Murdoch et al. an expensive coordinated slander campaign in his papers and come election day they did no better than they usually do despite the high polls prior to that.

But there was another twist, neither of the other two parties won a majority, and so a coalition was required, the Lib Dems got at least a share of the power as a result of this.

Yet it didn't really matter, because they ended up getting swallowed up by the other party anyway, the times they've tried to pursue their own agenda out come Murdoch's attack dogs again, and so effectively they've just been forced to act as puppets to prop up the Tory administration.

The moral of the story is that a 3rd party is not a panacea, unless you can deal with the deep rooted corruption and media stranglehold on influencing national political leaning then the 3rd party will either get slandered out of existence or swallowed up to become one and the same as the other two anyway.

I've learnt that the only way to win is to not play, I've heard all my life about how important it is to vote, but this is really all part of the same game. It's actually not important to vote at all, by voting for a lost cause you're merely adding legitimacy to the corrupt powers that repeatedly win out because they can come out and say "Hey look, we got the highest share of votes on a turnout of 60%!". Better to let the turnout drop and let them try and claim legitimacy when less than half the population can't even see the point in voting anymore. It's only at this point when their foes on the international stage are laughing in their faces at their claims of democratic legitimacy that they will be embarassed into accepting change. It's only when this facade of legitimacy they've built has crumbled that they can't carry on as they have.

Really, it's the fundamental system that's the problem, and when you vote within that system whoever for you're merely giving the system a vote of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Both the British and American forms of power designation need a root and branch change to be more proportional and more representational.

You cannot vote for a third party without weakening your side's position.

The Democrats and the Republicans are largely on the same side for many issues. Which of the two major parties is opposed to the militarization of the police? Which of the two major parties is opposed to the curtailment of our rights? Which of the two major parties is not on the payroll of powerful corporations?

Fragmenting the liberal vote while the conservative vote is unified has cost the liberal side the electoral victory in the very recent past.

What liberal side? The Democrats are on the left compared to the Republicans, but both parties are on the right wing of politics. The parties may occasionally disagree on which corporations will receive handouts and police/military support from the government, but they both agree that corporations should receive such support. The parties may occasionally disagree on which particular forms of speech should be censored, but they agree that censorship should happen. Conservatives conquered American politics a long time ago.

And if anyone doubts this for a minute, let me toss some examples out there:1. Asking Dennis Kucinich about UFOs [youtube.com] instead of health care in 2007.2. The "Howard Dean Scream" of 2003, which was mostly the result of sound editing, not at all representative of Dean's candidacy, and replayed constantly.3. Treating Ron Paul as a joke no matter how well he does in polls or how important his points are or how many cheers he gets in a debate, while treating Michelle Bachmann as a serious candidate.

What your basically saying is: don't bother to vote, your just going to lose anyway. There are two reasons this is B.S.

1. These are career politicians. They will vote however it takes to get elected. If by some miracle we could vote them out, the 'next guy' would understand that his actions could end his career and would behave accordingly.

2. More realistically #1 isn't going to happen. We're too balkanized of a country. The reason to vote then isn't to win, it's to prevent your opponent from winning by a landslide. Landslide victories embolden them to even worse excesses. If they already know you're not going to come out to vote, and that their jobs are secure no matter how awful they act, what's holding them back? The moral of the story is: vote even if you know your going to lose, or you'll lose more than just your vote.

The reason to vote then isn't to win, it's to prevent your opponent from winning by a landslide. Landslide victories embolden them to even worse excesses.

Really? Dumbya "won" by less than 50% of the vote both times, and claimed he had an election mandate to do what he wanted anyways. Remember his famous crack about "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it" right before he tried to fuck up Social Security in 2005?

You are implying that there is corruption going on, while there is a more plausible, legal forces that explains why the business get the political ear.

Big Business hires a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. If they are not happy in your City/State/Country they have the resources to leave and leave a lot of people without jobs and unable to pay for taxes.The problem will exasperated if business need to pay far more tax. Now a lot of business may be willing to do this without moving or laying off people but what it does is centralize the money flow even further so the business will get more political pull because that is more tax revenue that could leave.

So a Mayor, Senator, Representative, Judge, Governor or President really cannot just ignore what a big business is saying and will need to hear out some of their issues.

Now that the businesses have these peoples ears they can explain things to them so they understand their point of view much better making the decisions much more complex.

Then finally these people contributed to their campaign so they cannot just ignore the business as they owe them a favor.

The core of the problem is that businesses have gotten too big. This is the economical/political version of the Irish Potato famine. Where business diversity has been replaced a small group of large companies. Just like how the Irish were planting very few species of Potato so when a plague that infected the potatoes there wan't enough diversity to handle the loss.American have gotten wimpy.In school we are afraid to study Math and Science and all those courses where you cannot BS your way threw, because we are afraid that B in math with hurt you A average, and you will not get into Harvard, or if you are in college you GPA will suffer.We are afraid to start our own business.We are afraid to make something new.

In general we are afraid of a lot of things, things that are not really as scary as we make them out to be. But they do take risk and we have became Risk Averse. Thus we go the safest path.Take those classes that you can get an easy A.Get a low level job in a big company. Keep quite and out of trouble that way you don't get in trouble.Buy products from those big name stores because those little shops seem to sketchy.Complain and moan about a products rise in costs but do not cancel the service. (This part is getting better)

"The core of the problem is that government has gotten too big" Fixed.

Oh fuck you.

The core problem is not that government has gotten too big. The core problem is that businesses have become bigger than government, big enough to engage in regulatory capture and rent-seeking behaviors.

This is something that's happened time and again. The British East India company essentially took over the British government for far too long, leading to the ruin of Britain as a nation for some time. In the early 1900s, we needed a major slew of trust-busting activities BY the government [u-s-history.com] because of abusive companies like Standard Oil and Nortnern Securities who had engaged in regulatory capture and were exerting unfair monopoly controls, slowly taking over more and more sectors of the economy.

Sound familiar? Strike any parallels at all to the incredibly abusive megacorporations of today that gobble up sectors at an alarming rate? Or did you notice - for instance, that of the "fast food chains" in the US, more than 50% of them are actually owned by ONE company, "Yum Brands", which is itself owned by Pepsi - which also owns Lay's potato chips, Ruffles, Lipton, Doritos, "Quaker" brand, and on and on...

Still think there's any real competition left in the bullshit "free market" the Republicans worship so much? Might as well melt your coins down to a golden calf right now, buddy. There's not a real christian left on the "religious right", they're worshiping greed instead.

We need STRONGER government and another major round of trust-busting. Not weaker government like the Retardicans keep shouting. They're all either fucking clueless, brainwashed Rushtards or their goal is complete regulatory capture of government and rule by their aristocrat masters.

... Damn I wish I had some mod points to give you. This comment is AMAZING. Well stated - I've often been at odds with some of my friends who insist that one "brand" of something is better than another - especially when you look at some of the food products, where 4 different "brands" literally come right from the same factory [npr.org].

Similar link over here [wsj.com] for those who don't want to listen to a recorded audio feed.

Oh and don't forget this one [cracked.com] - it may be a Cracked.com article, but it's actually a great read.

No. Government is invariably corruptable. A strong corrupt government is worse than a weak corrupt government.

The key would be to make it impossible for the government to favor one business over another. Nobody is giving me millions of dollars to prevent a competitor from starting up; if congress was as impotent at granting favors as I am, there would be no bribery.

Big Business hires a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. If they are not happy in your City/State/Country they have the resources to leave and leave a lot of people without jobs and unable to pay for taxes.

The crucial thing to remember here is that the tech industry makes much more money for America than the entertainment industry. It still also employs more people. There has to be something else going on to explain why anti-tech, pro copyright, laws get so much support everywhere (not just in the USA)

In school we are afraid to study Math and Science and all those courses where you cannot BS your way threw,

How about English classes?;-)

I don't think the aversion to science and math classes has anything to do with fear, for most students. It's about 1) interest, 2) laziness, and 3) reward. Why bother working hard and taking the harder math and science classes when you can skate through with the minimum? It's not like these science-and-math-averse students are instead taking all the hardest English or S

Or just getting off the interilliteratenet and reading a book now and then? The kind of thing you pointed out sometimes amuses me and sometimes annoys me. Substituting "loose" for "lose" is one that annoys me; if you loose your mind, wonderful things happen. If you lose your mind, terrible things happen. One letter changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

If someone doesn't know the difference between through and threw or there, their, and they're, that simply indicates t

If someone doesn't know the difference between through and threw or there, their, and they're,

I wonder if he was using a speech-to-text converter.

I think it's about incompetent teachers. A bad teacher can make the most interesting subject in the world deadly dull and horribly boring.

I'm sorry, I don't really buy the boring teachers bit. Sure, it can make a difference for some kids, but how many kids go to college and get an MBA or go into law school because they were inspired by one of the elementary schoo

You are implying that there is corruption going on, while there is a more plausible, legal forces that explains why the business get the political ear.

Big Business hires a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. If they are not happy in your City/State/Country they have the resources to leave and leave a lot of people without jobs and unable to pay for taxes.

I do not know about the USA, but in the UK although big business employs lots of people, the majority of people are employed by small/medium sized companies. While individually each of these does not contribute as much as the large corporations, taken together the small/medium companies contribute more to the economy than big business.

The current distraction is the Tea Partiers, being fed a steady bullshit diet of "OMG GAYS ARE GOING TO FORCE YOUR KID TO GET GAY MARRIED" and "OMG THE GUVMINT IS GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNZ AND YOUR MUNNY IF OBAMA IS ELECTED AGAIN" through the Beck/Rush/Fox noise machine.

You think that the standard idiots even NOTICE that a congressional hearing is stacked one way or another? These are the cud-chewing moron crowd who think that watching C-Span is "boring" an

at some point, you realize that replacing fuses on a broken motor, while giving you some more 'time', is not a real solution. its not the fuse, its the motor, itself.

voting is a revolving doorway. while someone might be good (a brand new fuse) for a short while, its 100% guaranteed that OUR CURRENT SYSTEM will 'short him out' and he'll go bad. 100% guaranteed. its our system, not the fuses; er, I mean people.

"but I'll put a stronger fuse (person) in!"

sorry, this is not the way to fix it. when the motor is fundamentally broken, you replace the motor.

I hope some people get this.....before the upstream breaker has to fail.

kids, think of this when you dress in the morning and head into work for your long 10 or 12 hour days.

you empower the big corps to continue to fuck people over. you have your 'morning anger' here on slash, you say some strong words online but then get dressed, go into work and put up with ALL that mr bossman forces on you. you are a pawn and a slave and you ENABLE The Man to do what he's doing. you're all part of the system even if you are not able to see it.

In the past, we've had a former member we've banned file a false DMCA claim against us and successfully take us down.
We moved DNS and have been up since; For the record, 1and1 didn't even investigate, whereas our replacement, GoDaddy, kept a note of the circumstances and have notified us when that same person has tried to take us down again.

If this passes, our little forum is fucked. No two ways about it; Somebody will get butthurt about being banned and we'll get taken down, again - but this time, there's a risk of actual criminality behind it.

Don't tell me that this will be carefully used and no false claims will succeed, because we've been on the wrong end of that tale before.

Today, we're participating in the scheme being run by http://americancensorship.org/ [americancensorship.org]; If you run a site, regardless of mission, you should too.

Yes I have, as part of the scheme being run by http://americancensorship.org/ [americancensorship.org]. We also have a very annoying splashscreen on/index.php, which is viewable at the link if you have javascript enabled, and a big black bar over our logo at the top of every single page.

However, not all of our members are in the US; if I had to guess, maybe 10k are. Of that, how many will actually give enough of a damn to contribute?

It seems that this is hideously lopsided. One out of the six speakers being openly against the bill is an outrage!

Given how much has no doubt been paid by companies for their representation, that sixth person is a bit of a slap in the face. They should take action immediately, and refuse to pay their representatives.

(More seriously, American politics is becoming a textbook on how not to represent the people.)

Between this, warrantless wiretapping, reporters blocked from the teardown of the OWS protest, it seems that the US has reached the tipping point on its way to becoming a fascist.corporatist state. I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been anywhere close to as much outrage as I would have suspected.

You think the cud-chewers in flyover country even NOTICED what was going on?

Perhaps you missed out on the memo - they don't pay attention to the news, even when the newsmedia is outraged about not being able to report it.

They get their "info" from the hatemongers and racist shitwads on morning and afternoon talk radio. Like this "Dan Patrick" and "Sam Malone" we have on KSEV and KVCE in Texas; they've been slandering the ever-loving hell out of the OWS movement ever since it started. Sam hasn't noticed yet

there's the one you and I live in (if I may be so bold to assume) and then there's that flyover mentality that you mentioned. some call it 'red states' some call it 'pockets of ignorance'.

we are as strongly divided as we were in the civil war times. I'm not entirely sure there ever WAS a true USA central concept here, as the country is just too vast and varied for there to be one thought of The People. The People can't think straight and are told lies by those in po

If you can organize people to be part of a network you can create a free and open web. They will have to do the following.

1) buy a wireless router and allow it to become part of the grid network.2) refuse to restrict any traffic regardless of how you feel about it.3) if you can afford it, pay for a vpn connection to one other city that has done the same.

If people are not open to allowing any traffic to flow, then they want to be censored.

Why the hell is AFL-CIO for SOPA? And why are they considered a relevant party to testify? As a matter of fact, why is MasterCard for it? Visa is against it. MPAA is obvious, and Pfizer I can understand (they want to block sites that sell knock-off drugs).

Cozying up to the MAFIAA: "all this movie piracy is costing your people trade jobs in set building, craft services, etc etc etc". Just as much BS as they're pushing at Congress, but threatening the "little people" that they're losing work.

Pfizer are part of this because Canada and 20 other smaller countries' IP block comes under the SOPA regulation. They can simply close down [techdirt.com] the legal online Pharmacists in Canada causing untold damage to the poor in the US.

Your first amendment is the right of free speech. But you have the FCC and they can ban you if you show someone that says words like fuck on the TV. How can a government agency ban a private company if they try and use their most important right as in the Constitution?

Then you have the amendment that they shall no seizure of property without a proper warrant from a judge. But your country searches everything if you try and go on a plane. In not just search the bags, but it strip-search everyone, including children and babies.

The Americans claim to have the best democracy of the world, but you have only two political parties. Then you claim do be the most advanced civilization, but your poverty rate and child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries. There are a lot of cases in America that people die because of bad teeth.

And now you don't only have the DMCA law, that ignores the due-process and innocent-until-proven-otherwise rule, but you have soon the SOPA law.

I wouldn't care, but you try and export that anti-democracy laws to us in Europe, too. Just build a big wall around the USA, have your own internet and leave us in peace.

The larger corporate groups will exert their leverage alongside that of the US itself and laws like these will be enacted in most countries, specifically EU countries.Should that not come to pass, than the alternative (which is already under way, to an extent) will be pursued - extraditing or fining people across the pond who violate US internet laws (you can skip due process as well, because they're 'furners).

At the very least, they will (quite easily) get any website on Earth taken offline should they des

I can't say I've been occupying anywhere but work, but it seems amazing how many stories I've been seeing lately that strike me as "Congress trying to pass a law to help the 1% at the 99%'s expense". You'd think they'd at least wait until some of this blows over, but I guess they really don't care or feel threatened.

I know Conyers (D), Coble (R), Sensenbrenner (R) and Berman (D) and others are basically owned by the entertainment industry so there will be a total kiss-ass fest between them and the industry reps.

Jackson-Lee (D), Congress' most "entertaining" member since the departure of Cynthia McKinney, also is on the MAFIAA's side. We might get to see a supremely ignorant and downright mean tirade directed at the one person testifying against SOPA. If she does go off the deep end again, expect her to find some way to bring race into the issue. Who knows, we could get another gem like "two Vietnams" or

Lofgren (D) is the only one on the committee that know has expressed some apprehension at the vast expansion of copyright. It'll be interesting if she actually tries to put the interests of the people first.

in this mess is that if SOPA really ends up being as bad as it is currently, its powerful enough to use AGAINST big media.

Warner Brothers links to a Youtube video? Google should file a SOPA complaint against them. After a few such episodes, file for a site takedown and payment blocking to shut down WBs internet presence. EIther WB pays a heavy price in the market, or Google gets a court precedent weakening SOPA. Same goes for CNBC CNN, Fox or any of the other big media sites.

Even better, when the politicians who vote for this farce post infringing material on their own websites or their campaigns' websites, use the same approach. Sue their campaigns out of existence.

Better educated, too. Which is little surprise, since the Tea Tards mostly follow the dictates of Rush, Beck, and Fox News agitators as a faked astroturd movement, while the OWS protesters actually come less from the Democrat aisle and mostly from the true Independent center.

Because obviously people who have worked all their life and finally retired are in no position to call someone else 'lazy'?

Now hang on, later the same infographics say that the Tea Party makes more money per year? How can you make more money while being unemployed?

When all is said and done, though, I think the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street will agree on one basic principle: The people who committed vast amounts of financial fraud should be in jail, and we are not doing enough to find them.